Reply to comment

To add onto eledford's idea of confabulation...

At least before this class, my general understanding of the idea was pretty extreme - that everything is physical, except for our explanations.  For example, our arm may reach towards a glass of water for a physical and chemical reason, but we rationalize that we reached towards the glass because we were thirsty, when in fact we reached without even thinking about being thirsty.  It's sort of like the idea that you don't think "arm - move."  It just happens, and later is explained.  This makes sens with the example of the hypnotized man walking "around the table" - he rationalized his experience just as we would rationalize and explain our behaviors, the only difference being that an outside spectator (the hypnotist) knew that the man's explanation was probably not the true cause of his actions.

Basically, our body acts and we explain its actions after the fact (and attribute our explanation to be the true cause of action).

I'm not sure if this is too extreme/if this is the way we'll be approaching confabulation...it's definitely an unusual way to think about the causality/control we have relating to our actions.